Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313638 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#323782 Apr 18, 2014
Anti-semitism? The spectrum of your ignorant hatred is quite broad, isn't it?
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
A typical jerkoff like you hides behind the Law to justify all sorts of immoral activities. I bet you would rip off your own family if you could do it legally.
Most likely you are probably a slimeball ambulance chasing personal injury Lawyer who advises people how to just skirt under around and by and give everyone the shaft then think you are very clever because you skrewed some insurance company "legally". I know Jews just like you who do that sort of garbage and carry a smug, superior stiff neck attitude the whole time. You ain't fooling me for one second Pal.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#323783 Apr 18, 2014
People on life-support are born and thus are persons under the constitution. Fetuses are not born and have no inherent rights; the woman is born and vested just like any other citizen.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the medical fact that certain people cannot survive without some kind of mechanical life support, the fact that the mechanical life support is not a person doesn't make the one who relies on it to sustain life and who can't survive without it, any less of a person.
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't.
<quoted text>
I'm honest enough to admit that all I did was correct an inaccurate statement, to wit: you couldn't be charged with double murder if you murdered a pregnant woman.
What suing the Fed Ex driver instead of Fed Ex has to do with that.....is anyone's guess.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#323785 Apr 18, 2014
They've had a few centuries to fix that.

The real story:
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were smart enough to know the first thing about "hillbillies" and why they are in their impoverished condition you would probably be hesitant to be so judgmental. Most of "hillbillies" trace their roots to the early settlement of the United States. They were starving uneducated London street urchins and orphans abandoned by their family and sentenced by the English Court system as indentured servants and shipped to the new land. Once they got to America, if they survived the trip, they ran away from abuse, beatings, rape and cruelty by their master and "headed to the hills" and carved out a crude existence in the Appalachian Mountains and ended up working in the coal mines to survive. These are the people you make fun of today. You would probably be surprised at some of their good qualities and their love of family.
Many studies have shown that women are coerced and forced by their "boyfriends" to kill their child. Many girls get in trouble in college or teenage years and have families that could help them. Others choose the easy way out to escape public humiliation and embarassment. Others simply do not care. Regardless of the circumstances it is killing a life and it is wrong.
Scummy lawyers often get confused about this because what is legal has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with how good you can argue a case to a jury.
Good day and have a good Passover Celebration

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323786 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the medical fact that certain people cannot survive without some kind of mechanical life support, the fact that the mechanical life support is not a person doesn't make the one who relies on it to sustain life and who can't survive without it, any less of a person.
Right. A born person is a person even if it is dependent on artificial life support. Funny thing about that. If a born persons brain function is such that it can no longer sustains its own bodily functions or consciousness, that born person is considered brain dead and can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support.

A fetus, which is NOT a person, or born, has a brain function that is equal to that of a brain dead person as it can not sustain its own bodily function or consciousness. A fetus which is NOT a person, therefore can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support since that life support BY its life support who is and actual PERSON.

So, your point was??
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm honest enough to admit that all I did was correct an inaccurate statement, to wit: you couldn't be charged with double murder if you murdered a pregnant woman.
What suing the Fed Ex driver instead of Fed Ex has to do with that.....is anyone's guess.
NO ONE said you "couldn't" be charged with double homicide. Why can't you anti-choicers ever follow the actual argument? Or are you just lacking honesty?? The actual statement was not incorrect. It depends on where you are, when you kill a pregnant woman, and sometimes on the length of gestation, whether or not you will be charged with double murder. Some states DO NOT HAVE fetal homicide laws. SO the incorrect statement was that if you kill a pregnant woman you WILL be charge with double homicide.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323787 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>

Look dumbnuts, my argument wasn't and isn't with SCOTUS at all. It's with the dunce who claimed that someone murdering a pregnant woman could not be charged with double murder.
Hey jackass, Noah never made such a claim. Here is how it went:

This is the claim Seventee made:
"You do know you will be charged with DOUBLE murder if you kill a pregnant woman."

It said ****WILL be charged****

I replied:
"No actually you won't be charged with double murder if you murder a pregnant woman. You really should stop getting your information from anti choice websites."

Then Seventee made another assinine claim about the "Unborn Victims Act" and I answered:
"Unborn Victims is a federal law you loon. It does not apply in my state. SO NO you will not always be charged with double murder if you kill a woman and a her fetus. Funny that you do not know that. Btw, abortion is ALWAYS exempt. Why do you suppose that is?"

SO, you blithering TWIT, you are arguing your own straw man like the typical ignorant anti-choicer who thinks he is smart but is always far from it. No one EVER SAID a person "could not" be charged with double murder.

SO lets review.

1. You are arguing with the wrong person because you are a moron.

2. No one ever made the claim you think you are "correcting", so you are either dishonest or have reading comprehension issues.

SO are you really this stupid or are you just trying?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323788 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're suggesting that a charge of double homicide, or murder, will result in two convictions of homicide/murder. And that's not always the case.
<quoted text>
There is. You're just too stupid and narrow minded to see it. And I'm not going to educate you. Go to law school and then we can discuss it ad nauseum.
<quoted text>
Woopty f*cking do.
Go and find out if in either case there were two convictions of murder.
(staying away from Chicky because I meant what I said)

Dude, you're an idiot. I know lots of Lawyers quite well, Judges too. You aren't anything like them. You're way too emotional, and you don't have the ability to stand back, and look at something without bias or prejudice. You've shown that so many times, it's pathetic. I can clearly see that you're probably not very good at your job, and feel it necessary to belittle others to boost yourself up. I also don't know any Lawyers that feel it necessary to brag about themselves "ad nauseum", unless they just don't have what it takes. You need to stop prancing around acting like such a B*tch.

Please go back to Law School, you're an embarrassment to the Legal Profession.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323789 Apr 18, 2014
Just came back, and checked out the last page. I had quite the giggle at Lawyer Man. What a joke! I hope you don't write like that with any legal documentations. You'd be a laughing stock, and an example of how NOT to handle things.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323790 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"The purpose of this law was to establish the fetus as a homicide victim which heretofore it was not."
Wrong. The purpose of FHLs is two fold. 1- to offer greater deterrence against violence towards women, specifically a pregnant woman, by subjecting the offender to the possibility of being charged for two (2) felonies; and 2- to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, just as her right to terminate a pregnancy is protected. There is also an element of protecting a state's interest in the preservation of potential life, although pursuant to the holding in Roe, only kicks in at viability. I would argue that states who enforce FHLs at any stage prior to viability, are seeking unconstitutional punishment.
You have to consider that the exception of FHLs must be proportional to the very purpose of the FHLs. Thus, because FHLs exclude prosecution of a doctor who performs a legal abortion as requested by the woman, which directly correlates with the constitutional protection a woman enjoys, pursuant to Roe v. Wade, then the exact opposite can only be the prosecution of someone who maliciously and against her will, terminates a pregnancy she does not intend to terminate.
Further, in many jurisdictions, if the woman does not die, but the fetus does, the defendant can only be charged with ONE felony, whether it's assault, aggravated assault, or the like. Not two.
Did you thank Google, Wikipedia, and copy and paste when they handed you your ((snicker)) Law Degree?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323791 Apr 18, 2014
I'm a Doctor, ask me anything medical, and I can answer that for you. You're welcome!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323793 Apr 18, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>(staying away from Chicky because I meant what I said)
Dude, you're an idiot. I know lots of Lawyers quite well, Judges too. You aren't anything like them. You're way too emotional, and you don't have the ability to stand back, and look at something without bias or prejudice. You've shown that so many times, it's pathetic. I can clearly see that you're probably not very good at your job, and feel it necessary to belittle others to boost yourself up. I also don't know any Lawyers that feel it necessary to brag about themselves "ad nauseum", unless they just don't have what it takes. You need to stop prancing around acting like such a B*tch.
Please go back to Law School, you're an embarrassment to the Legal Profession.
Rachel, that's a crock. In no profession are all those part of it cookie cutter versions of all others. They're all people, and all people have biases, and emotions. Some would express them more, some less.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone shouldn't brag if they feel they have something to brag about. You do. All the time. Incessantly. Yes?:)

Didn't we already talk about the fact that YOUR experiences don't equal ALL experiences?:)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323794 Apr 18, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
Just came back, and checked out the last page. I had quite the giggle at Lawyer Man. What a joke! I hope you don't write like that with any legal documentations. You'd be a laughing stock, and an example of how NOT to handle things.
You must be bored. You're trolling again, lol.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323795 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"The purpose of this law was to establish the fetus as a homicide victim which heretofore it was not."
Wrong. The purpose of FHLs is two fold. 1- to offer greater deterrence against violence towards women, specifically a pregnant woman, by subjecting the offender to the possibility of being charged for two (2) felonies; and 2- to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, just as her right to terminate a pregnancy is protected. There is also an element of protecting a state's interest in the preservation of potential life, although pursuant to the holding in Roe, only kicks in at viability. I would argue that states who enforce FHLs at any stage prior to viability, are seeking unconstitutional punishment.
WRONG. Whether FHL's or ANY law for that matter, serve as a deterrent at all, is a matter for debate. The primary purpose and undeniable intent of any law is to provide a mechanism by which to punish the perpetrators of crime.
Beyond that, in the case of FHL's YOU above all do not get to determine what the purpose was. For that, before I relied on a partisan dunce like you, I would defer to those who actually wrote and introduced the bill, among those being Senator Lindsey Graham......

"“I believe most Americans want to protect life as much as possible," said Graham.“People who want to turn this into an abortion debate have an irrational view. The purpose of this bill is very simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE UNBORN CHILD.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323796 Apr 18, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
People on life-support are born and thus are persons under the constitution. Fetuses are not born and have no inherent rights; the woman is born and vested just like any other citizen.
<quoted text>
That's all well and good friend, but that wasn't his argument.
His claim was that a fetus could not be classified as a "person" SOLELY due to the fact that that for which it relies for survival is not a person. The argument is a complete fail.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323799 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're suggesting that a charge of double homicide, or murder, will result in two convictions of homicide/murder. And that's not always the case.
I suggested nothing of the kind. I said ONLY that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be CHARGED with double murder.
There is. You're just too stupid and narrow minded to see it. And I'm not going to educate you. Go to law school and then we can discuss it ad nauseum.
There is a connection ? So you mean to tell me you agree that a person could be charged with double murder if they murder a pregnant woman ? And that your Fed Ex analogy supports that ? Fine then, I stand corrected.
By the way, if you do agree then what the hell have you been arguing with me about ?
Woopty f*cking do.
Go and find out if in either case there were two convictions of murder.
What's wrong with you guy ? Are you unstable or what ? Convictions is irrelevant. All I ever claimed was that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be CHARGED with double murder. Take a few deep breaths pal and then go back and check my posts.

Whew ! Psycho booooooy !!!

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323803 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
So your rebuttal argument is the proverbial "liar, liar, pants on fire."
Duly noted.
Yeah, they usually resort to that or "I know you are but what am I?"

I sent you something.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323804 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lookie, lookie.
"I don't like myself here" you said.
You're a liar I said.
I was right.
Sure were.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323805 Apr 18, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. A born person is a person even if it is dependent on artificial life support. Funny thing about that. If a born persons brain function is such that it can no longer sustains its own bodily functions or consciousness, that born person is considered brain dead and can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support.
A fetus, which is NOT a person, or born, has a brain function that is equal to that of a brain dead person as it can not sustain its own bodily function or consciousness. A fetus which is NOT a person, therefore can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support since that life support BY its life support who is and actual PERSON.
So, your point was??
My point was too fold. One, that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be charged with double murder and two, that you aren't very bright at all.
NO ONE said you "couldn't" be charged with double homicide.
You did. Without any qualifier relative to jurisdiction or level of fetal development you said definitively "No actually you WON'T be charged with double murder if you murder a pregnant woman."
That is just as WRONG as saying that you WILL be charged with double murder.
Why can't you anti-choicers ever follow the actual argument? Or are you just lacking honesty?? The actual statement was not incorrect. It depends on where you are, when you kill a pregnant woman, and sometimes on the length of gestation, whether or not you will be charged with double murder. Some states DO NOT HAVE fetal homicide laws. SO the incorrect statement was that if you kill a pregnant woman you WILL be charge with double homicide.
NOW you say this. Just who is lacking in honesty ? The fact is it was I who clarified to SevenTee that whether you could be charged with double murder was a function of what jurisdiction you were in. You on the other hand said unequivocally and without any qualifier, that YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323806 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you thrive in coming across as making an argument in rebuttal when you're actually agreeing with me?
That depends. Do you thrive on creating arguments I've never made and then arguing against yourself ?
OTOH, not every law punishes a criminal. Anyone knows that and you should too. So your statement is false by the use of the word "any."
The fact that not every law punishes a criminal doesn't alter the fact that the mechanism to be able to punish is ANY law's intended purpose.
In addition, I'm not making a determination of the intent of FHLs.
Yes you are. You didn't disagree with my assessment of the purpose of FHL's. You stated definitively that I was WRONG, then proceeded to state authoritatively just what their purpose was. Don't tell me you weren't making a determination of their intent.
I'm making an argument. Arguments, dumbass, are affirmative statements that can reasonably be proven enough to convince a neutral third party. And you haven't yet made an argument worth the turd I just flushed.
You post on Topix from the bowl ? With your horrible diet that's got to be one awful stank in there. Does anyone use that computer after you ?
So you know, the words of senator Graham that you quote, unequivocally validate my argument. "Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence," is precisely my point. FHLs protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, just like Roe v. Wade protects a woman's right to kill her unborn by way of a legal abortion.
Wrong. The statement "Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence," is clearly meant to distinguish the killing from a legal abortion. On the other hand, Graham's stated PURPOSE of the law is clear when he says WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE UNBORN CHILD. He doesn't say we want to put them in jail for the damage done to the woman.
Unequivocally validates ? You are a hopelessly stupid.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323807 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was too fold. One, that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be charged with double murder and two, that you aren't very bright at all.


You mean "two fold"?

Huh. That's interesting because WE were discussing how a born person can be disconnected from its life support after being determined to be a brain dead born person and since a fetus has the equal brain function as a brain dead born person and a fetus is NOT a person......well you got the point. Loud and clear.

But now you are claiming your point was that a person could be charged with double murder? Funny but it looked to me as if you were trying to claim that a person was a person even if it was dependent on life support, which is what you actually said.

But its OK I can see why you would want to back pedal furiously away from that line of "reasoning" because it did not go where you thought it would. LMFAO

It is YOU that lacks honesty. Or you are just not very bright at all.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
You did.
Liar. I did not. I provided you with my EXACT words. No one ever said you "couldn't" be charged with double murder. Why lie? Can't admit when you are wrong??
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Without any qualifier relative to jurisdiction or level of fetal development you said definitively "No actually you WON'T be charged with double murder if you murder a pregnant woman."
That is just as WRONG as saying that you WILL be charged with double murder.


Nope. It is true. I answered properly, based on Seventees claim, that "you" would NOT be charged with double murder and I am correct. It is not my fault that Seventee was not properly informed on the subject. Nor is it MY job to educate it. Its argument was that the FEDERAL Unborn Victims of Violence act would cause "YOU" to be "charged with double murder if you kill a pregnant woman". Seventee was trying to insinuate that a fetus could be the "victim" of "murder" anywhere, any time, and that proved a fetus is a person. Kind of along the lines of the crap you were spouting with the "life support" argument you just lost badly, you blithering imbecile.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
NOW you say this. Just who is lacking in honesty ? The fact is it was I who clarified to SevenTee that whether you could be charged with double murder was a function of what jurisdiction you were in. You on the other hand said unequivocally and without any qualifier, that YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED.


Uh, nice try but like you said it was SevenTee who said without any qualifier that YOU **WILL** BE CHARGED WITH DOUBLE MURDER IF YOU KILL A PREGNANT WOMAN. I answered correctly you would not.

The Unborn Victims Act is a federal law. I said that. Then I asked why it did not know that.

And you KNOW what mistake Seventee was making (as did I AND several other PC posters) otherwise why would YOU have to clarify "to SevenTee that whether you could be charged with double murder was a function of what jurisdiction you were in."

So BITE ME.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323808 Apr 18, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>(staying away from Chicky because I meant what I said)
Dude, you're an idiot. I know lots of Lawyers quite well, Judges too. You aren't anything like them. You're way too emotional, and you don't have the ability to stand back, and look at something without bias or prejudice. You've shown that so many times, it's pathetic. I can clearly see that you're probably not very good at your job, and feel it necessary to belittle others to boost yourself up. I also don't know any Lawyers that feel it necessary to brag about themselves "ad nauseum", unless they just don't have what it takes. You need to stop prancing around acting like such a B*tch.
Please go back to Law School, you're an embarrassment to the Legal Profession.
You have to be kidding. This clown really claims he's an attorney ??? And you're buying it ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min No Surprize 1,508,281
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Life Pharts 32,816
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Mar 14 superwilly 258,490
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
NCAA Basketball Tournament Feb 27 needhelp01 1
More from around the web